Hospital at Home in Calgary, Canada: An opportunity for real-world care planning and integration.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The Complex Care Hub (CCH) is a hospital at home model for older adults and patients with complex medical conditions. As a collaboration between hospital physicians, nurses, pharmacists, community paramedics and home care, CCH provides substitutive acute care in patients' homes, leveraging a hybrid of in-person and virtual modalities. MethodsCCH was co-designed with an inter-professional, inter-organizational team spanning the healthcare system in Calgary, Canada. This included two Calgary acute care hospitals (including their General Internal Medicine and Family Medicine Hospitalist physician groups, Emergency Department, Radiology, Laboratory, Pharmacy and Day Medicine Clinics), Community Paramedics, Transition Services, Home Care and Primary Care in Calgary, Canada. Throughout this process we also involved patient advisors to support development of materials and processes impacting patient care and transitions across the system.The program evaluation leveraged the Quapruple Aim framework via a multi-methods study that included patient, caregiver and provider surveys and interviews, as well as quantitative data analysis on patient outcomes, healthcare utilization and cost. This included a comparison of CCH patients with retrospective propensity-matched controls, on the basis of demographic and clinical factors. For data from 208-2020, 24 of 278 CCH patients were matched to contemporaneous controls, and 238 were matched to historical controls at the same site. Currently, the same analysis is being conducted for admissions between 2020-2023. Results: CCH patients and caregivers responding to the survey reported an overall high quality of care. In the 2 years prior to the pandemic, patients' average rating of CCH care was 9.3 out of 0 (n=69). Of CCH patients surveyed during the COVID-9 pandemic (n=9), 97% of patients (n=9) were "satisfied" or "very satisfied," 00% reported that they were treated with "respect and dignity," and 80% felt prepared to manage their conditions upon discharge. Health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D visual analogue scale found an average improvement of 9.8 points from admission (n=48) to 30 days post discharge. Furthermore, there were no unexpected deaths of CCH patients during the first 5 years of the program.Length of stay (in days) appeared to be twice as long for CCH patients versus controls. However, when separating by subgroups, the AA group showed no statistically significant difference in length of stay, while the EFD subgroup had a statistically significant increase in length of stay over twice that of controls. AA subgroup cost estimates suggest 35% lower cost of index admissions with a further avoidance of 3% in the 80 days post-dishcarge with an overall reduction in cost of 22%. EFD subgroup showed 78% higher cost during the index admissions (approximately $9700 versus $000 for controls) with but showed a dramatic cost avoidance of 65% in the 80 days post-discharge ($5800 versus $24000) with an overall equal cost over 6 months in both arms. When all patients were analyzed together, the same pattern was observed as for the EFD subgroup, which comprised 75% of admissions. At the time of writing this abstract the analysis for data from 2020 to 2023 is in progress.ConclusionsHospital at Home is an emerging model of care that is able to safely provide home-based acute care and enhance transitions of care via real-world care-planning. The ability to care for patients outside of hospital walls increases capacity while reducing the need to build new physical infrastructure and is able to achieve the quadruple aim. Next Steps: As HAH gains momentum internationally, there is a need to formally recognize this model as a clinical entity that requires a specialized skillset and linkages with the community to improve patient outcomes and reduce potentially avoidable hospitalizations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».